Norwood v. Williams

3:20-cv-00919-MPS

2020 | Cited 0 times | D. Connecticut | April 11, 2020

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MICHAEL NORWOOD,

Petitioner, v. D.K. WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

Civil Action No. 18-874 (RBK)

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court the stay and for an answer, (ECF No. 16), and motion to amend the petition, (ECF No. 12). In an earlier Order, the Court stayed this matter pending the resolution of restitution related motions in Petition - 232. Petitioner raised identical restitution related claims in both his criminal case and the instant matter.

This Court recently resolved the motions in criminal case. Consequently, the Court will lift the stay and order Petitioner to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the Petition for substantially the same reasons set forth in earlier Opinion, in criminal case. (Crim. No. 96-232, ECF Nos. 234, 235). Additionally, the Court will direct Respondent to submit supplemental briefing on any jurisdictional arguments he wishes to pursue, as stated in his earlier letter. (ECF No. 9, at 2).

to amend his Petition to add claims that challenge his sentence. He contends that this Court improperly sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act, in light of recent Supreme Court cases. Petitioner alleges that he can bring such claims through the savings clause and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In contrast, the instant

Petition raises only restitution related claims and does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. 1

(ECF No. 1). Generally, under § 2241, a prisoner challenging his confinement must file his petition in his district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla jurisdiction of confinement rule, district courts may only grant habeas relief against custodians

Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170, 178 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C § 2241(a)).

release, is the warden of FCI Danbury, who is within the jurisdiction of the District of Connecticut.

See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494 95 (1973). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241 to hear the d. As a result, the Court will deny the motion to amend without prejudice to the filing of a new petition,

THEREFORE, IT IS on this 9th day of April 2020, ORDERED that the stay and for an answer (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED IN PART; and it is further

ORDERED that the stay in this case is LIFTED; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE within twenty-one (21) days, as to why the Court should not dismiss this matter for substantially the same reaso (Crim. No. 96-232, ECF Nos. 234, 235);

and it is further

1 Because the instant Petition challenged only the restitution aspect of his sentence, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut transferred the Petition to our District.

ORDERED that Respondent shall submit supplemental briefing, with regard to his jurisdictional arguments, or a letter stating that he does not wish to pursue such arguments, within twenty-one (21) days; and it is further

ORDERED (ECF No. 12) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a new petition, district of confinement; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Opinion and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

s/Robert B. Kugler ROBERT B. KUGLER United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MICHAEL NORWOOD,

Petitioner, v. D.K. WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

Civil Action No. 18-874 (RBK)

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court the stay and for an answer, (ECF No. 16), and motion to amend the petition, (ECF No. 12). In an earlier Order, the Court stayed this matter pending the resolution of restitution related motions in Petition - 232. Petitioner raised identical restitution related claims in both his criminal case and the instant matter.

This Court recently resolved the motions in criminal case. Consequently, the Court will lift the stay and order Petitioner to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the Petition for substantially the same reasons set forth in earlier Opinion, in criminal case. (Crim. No. 96-232, ECF Nos. 234, 235). Additionally, the Court will direct Respondent to submit supplemental briefing on any jurisdictional arguments he wishes to pursue, as stated in his earlier letter. (ECF No. 9, at 2).

to amend his Petition to add claims that challenge his sentence. He contends that this Court improperly sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act, in light of recent Supreme Court cases. Petitioner alleges that he can bring such claims through the savings clause and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In contrast, the instant

Petition raises only restitution related claims and does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement. 1

(ECF No. 1). Generally, under § 2241, a prisoner challenging his confinement must file his petition in his district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla jurisdiction of confinement rule, district courts may only grant habeas relief against custodians

Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170, 178 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C § 2241(a)).

release, is the warden of FCI Danbury, who is within the jurisdiction of the District of Connecticut.

See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494 95 (1973). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241 to hear the d. As a result, the Court will deny the motion to amend without prejudice to the filing of a new petition,

THEREFORE, IT IS on this 9th day of April 2020, ORDERED that the stay and for an answer (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED IN PART; and it is further

ORDERED that the stay in this case is LIFTED; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE within twenty-one (21) days, as to why the Court should not dismiss this matter for substantially the same reaso (Crim. No. 96-232, ECF Nos. 234, 235);

and it is further

1 Because the instant Petition challenged only the restitution aspect of his sentence, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut transferred the Petition to our District.

ORDERED that Respondent shall submit supplemental briefing, with regard to his jurisdictional arguments, or a letter stating that he does not wish to pursue such arguments, within twenty-one (21) days; and it is further

ORDERED (ECF No. 12) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the filing of a new petition, district of confinement; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Opinion and Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

s/Robert B. Kugler ROBERT B. KUGLER United States District Judge

Case Summary:
To generate a summary for Norwood v. Williams click here.
Back to top